The ejecta color also has to be at least partially a function of local soil composition.

Hmm...odd thought. On Earth, we generally observe that recent impact ejecta (from whatever event) exhibits color differences from the surface, and this phenomenon is usually--not always--due to the fact that the surface has undergone exposure to the elements, and therefore a myriad of chemical changes that the substrate has not experienced.

In this vein, I suggest that the MGS portfolio of recent impacts might merit detailed re-examination by MRO (esp. spectroscopic) in order to try to identify any effects that might be caused by differential oxidation. I'm thinking of the Viking LR "super-oxidant" theory, here...this might offer some new data and/or constraints.

--------------------

A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.

Seems like Beagle2 is NOT sitting in this crater deployed or undeployed. This is the crater that some hopeful B2 people thought held a deployed, but non functioning, Beagle2. Fuzzy pictures stretched to the limit seemed to show, at least to wishing eyes, that the craft was there.

The HiRise picture of the entire landing ellipse is very large, so it may be lurking in the pixels down there somewhere. But as Emily points out, if the parachuite did not deploy, then the craft is very far downrange and therefore out of the ellipse.

MPL will have to wait until Southern Summer I presume - we should know where it is FAIRLY well from tracking etc. and we know we should be able to find a parachute VERY easily, as well as Backshell and Heatshield. As for the lander itself - slightly smaller than the viking spacecraft if memory serves me right - and likely to be a lot 'shorter' (i.e. crushed landing legs etc ) - and if there were any 'splat' mark from leaked fuel etc - i would have thought that 3 winters would have eliminated much if not all evidence of that.

Beagle 2, well that supposed MOC target would be an interesting starting point. How far B2 got through its landing sequence before failing will dictate how much 'stuff' is on the ground. The Chute - if 'entry' worked - deflated airbags should be visible as well, if it got further than that. The heatshield, backshell and indeed the lander itself - I would say no - going on the sim I managed which seems to be something roughly indicative going on MER experience...http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ost&id=8409

As for pieces of the historic Russian landers - I would be doubtfull. They were comparatively small, and their Parachutes and indeed any other hardware- if anything like V1 and V2's chutes - will almost certainly be dust-covered and hard to identify.

Doug

Hello Doug

I am new to this blog and this forum....I want to help find the MPL....actually anything up there that man sent....but I always wondered what happened to that particular lander. It was expensive. It promised so much. It just disappeared. Like everyone else I would like to know why.

To try to understand what is involved with the search, I have been looking at one of the HiRISE Images assigned to the MPL Search.

I agree with comments made by tuvas.

I have to say that trying to find a Mars Lander or wreckage of same on this series of HiRISE Images is going to be a massive undertaking, even if you do know what you are looking for.

As part of my job I view RT Films of welds and you really need some experience to accurately understand what you are looking at.....same case here.

The Zoomify Viewer provided on the HiRISE site is pretty good and I am astonished at the resolution which seems to me to be much better than 25cm per pixel.

I wish it had a grid overlay that you could tick off.....something like that to keep track of what you have looked at. Also some sort of reference coordinates linked to the cursor which would give exact location so others can easily and quickly find and verify for themselves.

Frankly, some of the images I am seeing, well....I have no idea what it is I am looking at.....I have found a number of objects that look like man made wreckage to me.....

(I have posted these 23 images in an album with comments on the following site for anyone interested....

All objects are from one picture PSP_005301-1030) but look at these HiRISE images long enough and after a while you see all sorts of things. I will be adding to to the 23 images as I find more in the debris fields I think I am finding.)

I found these objects just by trying to identify things that stood out as being different from their surrounding terrain using a complete scan at 20M resolution and then zooming in further for confirmation. The Images are naturally very blurry and it's only to be expected.....I have no image enhancement software beyond Photo Impact 12 and that doesn't improve these images. These are only PrntScrn captures via Photo Impact 12to get to .jpg images that I could post on Facebook. The were always going to be degraded.....sorry. It just show the difficulties beginners have to cope with when they try to interpret images and then submit them for consideration.

To aid radiographers when they review RT Films of welds there are often reference images showing the appearance of typical defects. Something similar to guide novice interpreters would be invaluable.

One of the hardest things for people to do is identify things from above as opposed to head on or from the side. There are clearly people on this blog with considerable experience who are in a position to easily identify the MPL as well as Martian terrain......It would be very useful if that knowledge could be passed on in some way to beginners and even other more experienced searchers.

Finally, someone has to look at images of submitted possible MPL crash sites and say "yea" or "nay"......

In the interests of sifting out the spurious stuff and giving the idea of what might be right, it might help to have a "Hall of Blunders and Possibles" Site with all the pics annotated with verdict and their location clearly indicated on the HiRISE Image of concern. For example, someone may have found the same things I have on PSP_005301-1030 and they have long ago been dismissed as non-starters. It would help tremendously with realizing efficient use of time and effort.

A question......

In the case of the Mars Polar Lander do we know if the heat shield and back shield and chute detached. I ask because one of the objects I have found looks like the MPL sitting on it's Heat Shield, back shield present but displaced, with chute still attached....please note I didn't say is.....just looks like.

If we know the heat shield and back shield and chute detached what I have found clearly isn't the MPL ....just something that looks odd. I am going to post some images of this possible MPL and other anomalies here just to give you an idea of what I am talking about and give others an idea of problems with image interpretation......other details are on Facebook if anyone needs more information about location and so on to check for themselves. I have not messed with these images beyondlabeling, adding arrows or outlines or zooming in even more....I all cases I recommend going back to the Zoomifierhttp://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/HiRISE/hirise...SP_005391_1030/The control panel takes you down to a view with 20M scale. Right clicking gives you the option to zoom in further.

One last point...something you said.....I do agree that sands may cover wreckage of old Russian landers but also winds blow sand away from covered objects here on earth particularly after large dust storms. Might that not happen on Mars?

Large areas of the Image I have searched on my first HiRise Image showed little signs of sand drifts, just lots and lots of rock formations of various types (I think).

It can work both ways I think....hope.

It would be amazing to find those old Russian Landers and MPL...in fact any of the old space debris. Just to get something from Earth to the Martian surface regardless of whether it worked or not, is a tremendous achievement and an important monument to the amazing technology and scientific achievements of man and stupendous efforts of thousands of Earth's brilliant and best and each debris field is maybe worth pinpointing on the Map of Mars. Also....it would stop them beingrediscovered.

PS - OK - Sorry but due to 500 pixel max limit on the width on this blog I don't think you will be able to see much from the images thatI have posted here......my apologies....please see the images posted on my Facebook Wall

In the case of the Mars Polar Lander do we know if the heat shield and back shield and chute detached.

We have absolutely no idea. After the spacecraft turned toward it's entry attitude, and (as expected) went quiet...nothing was ever heard again.

I'm afraid none of your candidates stand out to me at least. One could easily find many similar features in a swathe of HiRISE images. Moreover, since the last post in this thread more than 5 years ago - we have an interesting analogue to compare to.

An intact lander that safely touched down without trouble, along with a heatsheild impact, a backshell and parachute landing nearby - their visibility has been massively compromised after just one Martian winter.

The parachute is entirely invisible. The backshell is visible, but much less defined, the heatshield impact has been rendered, in my opinion, indistinguishable from the natural terrain - and the lander significantly degraded. If it had never deployed it's solar arrays and just smashed into the ground rapidly (as the MPL investigation suggests it might) then it could be argued it would be no more visible than the PHX heatshield is now.

Now extrapolate the same problem to MPL. Let's assume it got thru EDL to the point of separating from it's back shell - and thus the back shell with Parachute, and heat-shield would have impacted just like with Phoenix.

Take the obscuration of the Phoenix hardware over just one Martian winter. Now multiply that by 3, 4 or 5 (depending on what season you are picking images from) - that polar lander site has been thru several winters - coverings and exposures of frost etc.

Honestly, I don't think even if it's there, we could, with confidence, identify it.

I think if you're going to expend energy on this - far better to do it at an equatorial site ( where, for example, we know a parachute like Mars Pathfinder is still visible - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/2007/d...MPF_parts_2.jpg - after 10 years ) with sites like Beagle 2 (where we have a fairly well constrained entry ellipse). I would urge caution for the Russian sites....the area required to be searched is simply massive, and I doubt if any genuine attempt has been to cover those sites with HiRISE at all.

On the HiRise website this week (Feb2012) they posted an image that may contain the Soviet Mars 6 lander. The press release said that this particular image-site was picked by the CTX team based on a bright spot ... it turned out to be cracked bedrock in the HiRise image.

Here is Spirit's site with CTX at 3X! (using JP2000 base image and post processed for sharpness) circa 2010

Here is Opportunity's site with CTX at 3X (JP2000) circa 2008

IMHO ... CTX images can not image parachutes or landers. It has a resolution of almost 20 meters per pixel. (HiRise is 100 times better). The minimum parachute-hunting camera is probably the MGS-MOC (1.5 - 3meters).

But I sure am glad the CTX guys got their HiWish in the Mars 6 area (good job guys, now get those HiRise guys to go a little to the west!)

It maybe interesting to you that a parachute-like feature was recently spotted in the Mars 3 landing area. Amateurs from russian Novosti-kosmonavtiki forum have discovered a bright patch, 8 meters in size, "covering" nearby rocks.

What was Mars 3's landing system like - and thus what other hardware would we expect to find locally? Heatshield size, was there a backshell. Did the chute stay attached to the lander etc etc.

I recommend you to take a look at that movie. Reentry vehicle views as well as entry, descent and landing timeline are both presented there. There was no backshell attached to parachute system as it was in the american Mars missions. Chute was ejected by retrorockets before the landing. Attached images illustrate reentry vehicle size and final vehicle configuration just before the touchdown. According to these pictures we have to find: heatshield (~4 meters in diameter), toroidal block (~2 m in diameter), retrorockets, landing apparatus itself (an "egg" 1-1.5 meter in size)

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted.
Do not reproduce without permission. Read
here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the
individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer
UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent
of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence
over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.

SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is a project of the Planetary Society
and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep
this forum up and running by contributing
here.